Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
261 to 280 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
PMLA provisional attachment over PACL-linked properties could not be continued where the Supreme Court had already created a special Article 142 restitution framework for investors. The Court noted that enforcement powers are not extinguished by judicial directions, but they must operate consistently with the court-prescribed mechanism. It further held that restoration under the PMLA is only a limited exception dependent on Special Court satisfaction and cannot justify parallel continuation of attachment when the special process is available. Because the attachment had already served any preservative purpose and prolonged pendency was prejudicing investor interests, the matter was directed to proceed under the Supreme Court-created framework, and the attachment orders were set aside.
PMLA provisional attachment over PACL-linked properties could not be continued where the Supreme Court had already created a special Article 142 restitution framework for investors. The Court noted that enforcement powers are not extinguished by judicial directions, but they must operate consistently with the court-prescribed mechanism. It further held that restoration under the PMLA is only a limited exception dependent on Special Court satisfaction and cannot justify parallel continuation of attachment when the special process is available. Because the attachment had already served any preservative purpose and prolonged pendency was prejudicing investor interests, the matter was directed to proceed under the Supreme Court-created framework, and the attachment orders were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
